Wow! Thank You Sen Conyers, lead they way

Ole boy got a little ticked here when real questions were asked about the socialist candidate he is promoting. :)
Orlando TV Anchor conducts 'unprofessional interview' of Biden

################################################################################



Wow! Thank You Sen Conyers, lead they way for Republicans to follow.

by The One on Sun 26 Oct 2008 09:57 PM EDT

In 2004 Sen Conyers tried to formally challenge the vote of the Ohio electors when the Electoral College ballots were opened before the joint session of Congress. Thank you Sen Conyers for leaving us the bluebrint to know what to email,fax,write and call our 535 Congress members about when they meet in Jan 2009.

............................................................................................
This is his letter to Senator Boxer in 2004 seeking a Senator to join house members objecting to electors. By reading this letter we can see what the law says and what an individual Senator and Congressman can do to object to electors of Obama
.............................................................................................

"Dear Senator Boxer,

"As you know, on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress, commencing at 1:00 P.M. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law. I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election.

"3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof. When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No votes . . . from any other State shall be acted upon until the [pending] objection . . . [is] finally disposed of." 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.

"Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.

"Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State — in this case Ohio — has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection — if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives — should be debated by each body separately until "disposed of".

"Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr."
...........................................................................................

Here is a general objection:
(2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law;

{For an elector to be "lawfully certified" the elector should have been "lawfully nominated" by the DNC. To be lawfully nominated by the DNC in each state the nominee must be a natural born citizen. The elector should be objected to on the basis that the DNC has not lawfully nominated a natural born citizen of the US therefore the elector will be casting a vote for Obama not being "lawfully nominated" by the DNC.}

Do you think this will pass the smell test?

Can you think of another way to word the objection?

Comments on ObamaCrimes.com 10/26/08


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
As you can read below the democrates were objecting to the electorial votes in the Joint session of Congress in Jan 7, 2005 but voted to admit them anyway.
....................................................................................

Electoral Vote Challenge Meets Venomous Response in Congress
by Brian Dominick and Ariella Cohen
The 2004 presidential election culminated yesterday with George Bush officially winning office amidst congressional challenges and persistent allegations of voter suppression.

Jan. 7, 2005 – In special sessions of both chambers of Congress Thursday, Republican lawmakers met a handful of Democratic colleagues with vitriolic diatribes when the latter raised concerns about electoral irregularities that took place during Ohio?s controversial November 2 election process. The Democrats? challenge came on the heels of a congressional report detailing numerous allegations of disenfranchisement in Ohio.

In a departure from traditional procedure, the joint session of Congress convened to certify the electoral vote count and officially recognize George W. Bush as president elect broke up for two hours of separate debate among senators and representatives. The special session was activated when Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and other House members in challenging the certification of Ohio?s 20 crucial electoral votes.

Rather than an attempt to overturn the outcome of the 2004 election, Democratic legislators said they wished to use their protest as a means of highlighting what they consider ongoing election problems that stand little chance of correction unless the status quo is confronted.

"This objection," Tubbs Jones said on the House floor, "does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning the victory of the president but it is a necessary, timely and appropriate opportunity to review and remedy the most precious process in our democracy. I raise this objection neither to put the nation in the turmoil of a proposed overturned election nor to provide cannon fodder or partisan demagoguery for my fellow members of Congress."
In addition to the misallocation of voting machines, the House Democrats' investigation found the process surrounding the casting and counting of provisional ballots deeply problematic.

Speaking to the press Thursday morning, Boxer announced her decision to co-sign Tubbs Jones? objection. "Every citizen of this country who is registered to vote should be guaranteed that their vote matters, that their vote is counted and that in the voting booth," Boxer said, "their vote has as much weight as any senator, any congressperson, any president, any cabinet member, or any CEO of any Fortune 500 corporation."

The chief concerns raised by dissenting politicians were mostly straightforward, like the alleged misallocation of voting machines that affected primarily Democratic districts.

Voters waited "hours and hours and hours in the rain to vote," Boxer said. "Why did an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 voters leave polling places in frustration without having voted? How many more never even bothered to vote after they heard about this?"

Boxer also asked, "Why did Franklin County officials reduce the number of electronic voting machines in downtown precincts while adding them in the suburbs?"

To punctuate the urgency of her appeal, Boxer said the time has come to "cast the light of truth on a flawed system which must be fixed now. Not in years from now, but now."

The fiercest debate took place in the House, where visibly frustrated Republicans unleashed verbal attacks on their Democratic colleagues. Representative Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio) said she regretted that so early in the 2005 session, Congress was "bogged down" in "frivolous debate." She warned the American public not to be deceived by dissenters, whom she called "aspiring fantasy authors" of "wild conspiracy theories," possessing "no credible agenda for America" and bent on "baseless and meritless tactics."

Florida Republican Ric Keller distilled his message down to three simple words: "Get over it," he told Democratic detractors. Rep. David Hobson, an Ohio Republican, called the proceedings "outrageous."

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) said questions about Ohio?s electoral process should be dealt with in Ohio, not in the United States Congress. "Every time we attack the process, we cast that doubt on that fabric of democracy that is so important."

In an apparent attempt to argue against the Democratic challenges, Blunt continued: "People do have to have confidence that the process works in a proper way. They don?t need to believe that it is absolutely perfect because after all it?s the greatest democracy in the history of the world. And it?s run by people who step forward and make a system work in ways that nobody would believe until they see it, to produce the result of what people want to have happen on election day."

Calling the proceeding "an assault against the institutions of our representative democracy" and "a threat to the very ideals it ostensibly defends," Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) denied that any voter disenfranchisement took place anywhere in 2004 or 2000. He accused Democrats of crying wolf, and wondered "what will happen" when a future election is actually stolen.

Rep. Tubbs Jones, one of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, that spearheaded the challenge, preempted Republican attacks by setting the tone of the admittedly symbolic protest. "It is on behalf of those millions of Americans who believe in and value our democratic process and the right to vote that I put forth this objection today," she said. "If they are willing to stand at polls for countless hours in the rain, as many did in Ohio, then I should surely stand up for them here in the halls of Congress."

North Carolina Democrat Mel Watt couched his objection in terms of the US agenda abroad. "The United States cannot continue to claim that it stands for and is willing to fight for democracy and the rights of people to vote in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places around the world while not being willing to do whatever is necessary to guarantee the vote of our citizens here at home," Watt said.

The handful of Democrats who acknowledged the voter disenfranchisement made clear that while Ohio may have been under the most scrutiny and may have seen some of the worst election irregularities, the state was but an example of voting problems throughout the nation.

In the end, each house had to vote on whether to accept Ohio?s 20 electoral votes for the Bush/Cheney ticket. The Senate voted 74-1, with Sen. Boxer maintaining her objection, while in the House, the vote was 267-31 in favor of certifying the Ohio outcome.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Wow if this happens again when ojections to Obama's electors are made, the 2008 Presidential election could really be resolved in a joint session of Congress.
I would like to see Obama exposed as a FRAUD but Joe Biden as President would be another nightmare!!!!!!! It is a real possibility the real vote will be in a joint session of Congress. Congress could just object to certain electors and then etc, etc, roll the dice....um lets see......President Palin?


....................................................................................